|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Oct 28, 2019 19:30:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Oct 28, 2019 19:35:39 GMT
I must say I like the idea of having the route run from 07:00 to 19:00, a whole 12 hours rather than just very few, I kind of feel that maybe frequency should be further looked into, have a feeling that running a service every 15 minutes would be beneficial as this connection is going to be as the consultation said one of the only connections for some of the serviced stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 28, 2019 20:04:29 GMT
Definitely looks to be an improvement from the W10 with the enhanced service to what passengers currently have. The lack of a service to Caterhatch Lane seems a retrograde step though, I think the cross Enfield link on to North Middlesex Hospital looks really good, and I think I would appreciate that connection if I were a W10 user as if alleviates the need to change in Enfield. I hope that buses are timed to connect with trains at Enfield Town, as I seem to recall having a 25 minute connection between the Overground and the W10 at Enfield Town. All in all seems to be a change for the better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 20:30:44 GMT
So if the 456 goes ahead, it will operate the existing W10 until 2023 and be operated by Go-Ahead and won't be announced this year. I know most of you will know this
|
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Oct 28, 2019 20:52:08 GMT
So if the 456 goes ahead, it will operate the existing W10 until 2023 and be operated by Go-Ahead and won't be announced this year. I know most of you will know this It’s been added to tranche 702 to start October 2020 so won’t be run under W10 contract |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 28, 2019 22:10:39 GMT
A rarity in that a consultation with a lot of good in it but there are a few concerns:
Lack of extension to Crews Hill Station which is literally by bus, an extra 1-2 minutes more but a slightly awkward walk where crossing a busy road is required due to the pavement abruptly ending on one side. A stand could be placed beyond the railway bridge with it turning around at the junction with East Lodge Lane. Crews Hill as well as the stretch of road up to that junction is surprisingly part of Enfield
The lack of a reason for why the W10 has to be renumbered - what is beneficial about spending money to change all the tiles (timetables & maps have to be altered) on affected bus stops?
Why is this as well as the Coulsdon consultation quoting 400 metres in terms of the distance people are from the bus network when an entirely new number was used for the 384 consultation?
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 28, 2019 22:31:19 GMT
I thought that aswell about the 400m but 450m for the 384. It seems it alters when suits.
|
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Oct 28, 2019 23:03:11 GMT
Definitely looks to be an improvement from the W10 with the enhanced service to what passengers currently have. The lack of a service to Caterhatch Lane seems a retrograde step though, I think the cross Enfield link on to North Middlesex Hospital looks really good, and I think I would appreciate that connection if I were a W10 user as if alleviates the need to change in Enfield. I hope that buses are timed to connect with trains at Enfield Town, as I seem to recall having a 25 minute connection between the Overground and the W10 at Enfield Town. All in all seems to be a change for the better. According to the attached documentation, the Carterhatch Lane section is currently used by only 7 passengers a day. Leaving them to use the more frequent 191 instead won't be the end of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 29, 2019 1:11:58 GMT
This area, Farm Lane / Firs Lane, is somewhere I am little familiar with. A few problems I have with this consultation;
- No mention of the existing width restrictions on Firs Lane, how is this going to be overcome with Enfield Council?
- No mention of the humped bridge on Farm Lane, has route testing been conducted? As grounding is likely on this bridge even on an 9m bus.
- There are a series of drop down kerbs on Firs Lane/Farm Lane, are fixed stops really practical?
- I agree with vjaska, The renumbering of the W10 feels inappropriate. The new number feels out of place, 429 would be much more appropriate if a letter prefix really must be dropped.
Again I agree with vjaska, the route should serve Crews Hill station, the only problem would be where to stand buses. I would suggest a further a extension to Chase Farm Hospital (via Crews Hill Station)
The connections with Winchmore Hill area and North Midd Hosp are very good ideas. Even the World End's Lane to Winchmore Hill links area good round the corner solutions. I do not think the withdrawal of the Caterhatch Lane section should too much of a concern as the intended route does not even serve Chase Farm Hosp which I would imagine being a sought after destination on this road.
In conclusion good idea but quite a few infrastructure issues that will set back implementation.
|
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Oct 29, 2019 8:49:13 GMT
This area, Farm Lane / Firs Lane, is somewhere I am little familiar with. A few problems I have with this consultation; - No mention of the existing width restrictions on Firs Lane, how is this going to be overcome with Enfield Council? - No mention of the humped bridge on Farm Lane, has route testing been conducted? As grounding is likely on this bridge even on an 9m bus. A route test was undertaken on 15 July 2019. It was attended by LB Enfield, Service Delivery and the Performance team.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 29, 2019 10:49:48 GMT
This area, Farm Lane / Firs Lane, is somewhere I am little familiar with. A few problems I have with this consultation; - No mention of the existing width restrictions on Firs Lane, how is this going to be overcome with Enfield Council? - No mention of the humped bridge on Farm Lane, has route testing been conducted? As grounding is likely on this bridge even on an 9m bus. - There are a series of drop down kerbs on Firs Lane/Farm Lane, are fixed stops really practical? - I agree with vjaska, The renumbering of the W10 feels inappropriate. The new number feels out of place, 429 would be much more appropriate if a letter prefix really must be dropped. Again I agree with vjaska, the route should serve Crews Hill station, the only problem would be where to stand buses. I would suggest a further a extension to Chase Farm Hospital (via Crews Hill Station) The connections with Winchmore Hill area and North Midd Hosp are very good ideas. Even the World End's Lane to Winchmore Hill links area good round the corner solutions. I do not think the withdrawal of the Caterhatch Lane section should too much of a concern as the intended route does not even serve Chase Farm Hosp which I would imagine being a sought after destination on this road. In conclusion good idea but quite a few infrastructure issues that will set back implementation. I remember a route test being done as mentioned by lundnah as a pic sufaced of a NP single decker being used for that role along what I know is Firs Lane and I think through the section where the width restriction is. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 29, 2019 12:23:43 GMT
Either if it takes on the W10 contract or if a new award is made to Go Ahead NP then the SEs from the 100 could be an option for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 29, 2019 12:47:32 GMT
Either if it takes on the W10 contract or if a new award is made to Go Ahead NP then the SEs from the 100 could be an option for it. It is out for tender ... the W10 was conspicuous by its absence from the current tender programme |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Oct 29, 2019 12:52:53 GMT
Either if it takes on the W10 contract or if a new award is made to Go Ahead NP then the SEs from the 100 could be an option for it. It is out for tender ... the W10 was conspicuous by its absence from the current tender programme The W10 had a 2 year extension which would have taken it to 2023 where the tendering programme document hasn’t been released yet. It was in the 2020/21 document but that was before the 2 year extension |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 29, 2019 13:15:22 GMT
This area, Farm Lane / Firs Lane, is somewhere I am little familiar with. A few problems I have with this consultation; - No mention of the existing width restrictions on Firs Lane, how is this going to be overcome with Enfield Council? - No mention of the humped bridge on Farm Lane, has route testing been conducted? As grounding is likely on this bridge even on an 9m bus. A route test was undertaken on 15 July 2019. It was attended by LB Enfield, Service Delivery and the Performance team. Thank you for the above information. Going to gleem through this document. |
|
